Man, I think you're totally lost. Rebranding is name change, name change is rebranding. You're talking about them like they're two different things when they're exactly the same. If we change the name, we have rebranded the team. In order to rebrand the team, we would need to change the name.

What I don't like are the responses from people who just say we have a shitty basketball team so we shouldn't worry about the team name. The rebranding is being done independently of the roster rebuild. Rebranding is just all a matter of would the team be more appealing from a merchandising standpoint if we changed things up. If you're like me and you think it would, then you're in favor of rebanding. It's that simple.

I know they're the same thing, you just misinterpreted what I was saying. It has a "?" next to where it says "Name change" in the title of this thread, therefor allowing us to vote for no name change. You were getting angry at people for not wanting to re-brand as if we weren't allowed and that this thread was simply for throwing around name and jersey ideas.

And then you proceeded to list off a bunch of names as if you had just rendered our arguments invalid.

I also doubt if we changed our name that this franchise would all of the sudden become instantly popular and all the free-agents starting wanting to play for us. That doesn't happen unless a team is actually good.

I also doubt if we changed our name that this franchise would all of the sudden become instantly popular and all the free-agents starting wanting to play for us. That doesn't happen unless a team is actually good.

I also doubt if we changed our name that this franchise would all of the sudden become instantly popular and all the free-agents starting wanting to play for us. That doesn't happen unless a team is actually good.

You don't change the name to attract free agents. I seriously doubt any free agent cares what the name of the team he's going to play for is. Changing the name is to sell more merch. Possibly build some more interest in the team. If we do a total rebuild it will be kinda like a new expansion team, so why not a fresh start with the name? I completely understand people who like the name Raptors and want to keep it, and I wouldn't be too upset if we did. I'm just curious to see what kind of ideas Leiweke comes up with. If they all seem like garbage then by all means let's keep Raptors. But if there's something better than Raptors, I think now is a good time for a change.

Man, I think you're totally lost. Rebranding is name change, name change is rebranding. You're talking about them like they're two different things when they're exactly the same. If we change the name, we have rebranded the team. In order to rebrand the team, we would need to change the name.

What I don't like are the responses from people who just say we have a shitty basketball team so we shouldn't worry about the team name. The rebranding is being done independently of the roster rebuild. Rebranding is just all a matter of would the team be more appealing from a merchandising standpoint if we changed things up. If you're like me and you think it would, then you're in favor of rebanding. It's that simple.

Not true. You can rebrand without changing the name. You can't really change the name without rebranding though. If the team wants to rebrand, they can do it with colours, logos, jersey designs, mascot, etc etc etc all without changing the name Raptors. If the team suddenly went with a "bird of prey" logo with black and pink logo then they'd certainly be a "rebranding" but with keeping the name Raptors (NOT ALL SUGGESTING THEY DO THAT!!).

Case in point, the Nets when they moved from New Jersey to Brooklyn. Changed the entire brand but kept the name. Moving a stadium 50 miles helps, but still, a recent example of keeping the name and rebranding.

Another example, look at how the Oregon Ducks football team has changed their brand in the last decade. The Nike jerseys, logo, etc have completely changed that image from a green Donald Duck to a bad-ass team.

If we had to choose one of these I'd go with Dragons. Fantasy genres are popular now. It's culturally significant to both some Euro and Asian cultures. Can probably make some pretty interesting logos if they want. Always good when your image can be associated with breathing fire.

If we had to choose one of these I'd go with Dragons. Fantasy genres are popular now. It's culturally significant to both some Euro and Asian cultures. Can probably make some pretty interesting logos if they want. Always good when your image can be associated with breathing fire.

Can you imagine being the Toronto Terriers? lol. Cute dogs but not a good team name.

If we had to choose one of these I'd go with Dragons. Fantasy genres are popular now. It's culturally significant to both some Euro and Asian cultures. Can probably make some pretty interesting logos if they want. Always good when your image can be associated with breathing fire.

You're against Raptors because it was based on the popularity of a movie but for Dragons because World of Warcraft and Game of Thrones are popular now???

You're against Raptors because it was based on the popularity of a movie but for Dragons because World of Warcraft and Game of Thrones are popular now???

That's not why I'm choosing it. Poorly worded but it's more to reflect that what is a timeless image in many parts of the world is now even more popular than usual. That of course matters when re-branding since money is always the major factor in such plans, from the organization's perspective. I also said it's relevant culturally to several ethnic groups. That is why it gets used in fantasy. Dragons have been popular long before WOW and Game of Thrones. It really is a timeless cultural image, that is relevant in several different mythologies.

Regardless of what I think of Raptors, the fact that it was chosen because of a movie isn't the real problem....

The problem starts with the fact that in Jurassic Park, there actually is no Velociraptor. The dinosaur they sell as a raptor is actually based behaviorally on Deinonychus, and physically made up. The image is completely meaningless. Then you have to consider that it is not at all a timeless item, culturally. It was a very isolated phenomenon. It should be shed and left behind. It belongs in 1993, where it came from.

I wouldn't go as far as Kelly and call it a citywide blight, but it is bad in the same ways he says, in terms of being terrible metaphorically, allegorically, and literally. Dragons is awesome in those facets.

If we had to choose one of these I'd go with Dragons. Fantasy genres are popular now. It's culturally significant to both some Euro and Asian cultures. Can probably make some pretty interesting logos if they want. Always good when your image can be associated with breathing fire.

I actually find the name Toronto Scorpions very cool. I'm also pretty sure there's no other team in either professional or college sports that use that name.